InterCap’s Impact:
1,000 New Students?
The agreement by InterCap Holdings to double the number of affordable housing units on Washington Road in West Windsor and the court’s endorsement of that agreement is not something that should be celebrated by the taxpayers in West Windsor. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence recognizes that 800 two-bedroom units means a minimum of 1,000 new school children in our town and possibly as many as 1,500. This means new schools will have to be built, meaning a significant increase in property taxes, at a time when we should be seeing no added taxes given the economy.
The West Windsor Town Council must mandate that all the units be sold at market rates, not rented, and that all the prospective buyers be able to afford the mortgages on their own right. Any township affordable housing funds and any other surplus funds should be used to mitigate property tax increases on current residents of the township and not to prop up people who really cannot afford to buy the units in the first place. Remember the lesson of the 2008 mortgage market meltdown? Let’s not repeat it. Not only will more schools be needed, law enforcement will need to be beefed up, which will also add to the cost to taxpayers.
This deal is only good for InterCap and affordable housing advocates. It’s a nightmare for the majority of us. The sooner COAH is abolished and Judge Feinberg retires, the better for us all.
Brian Reilly
Benford Drive
Existing Businesses Need Consideration
With all the discussion about plans for how the “redevelopment” area in Princeton Junction will be developed for housing and commercial uses, not one word has been said about what all this means for the businesses that now occupy the buildings in the area. The redevelopment area is not all open space, nor is it full of old or vacant buildings. There are many buildings there that are in very good condition, and some are occupied by a variety of businesses, many of which would be hard pressed to survive if their offices and other facilities were torn out from under them.
It’s understandable that the developer is reluctant to mention this aspect of the plan, but why has no one in the township leadership — mayor or council — ever mentioned this aspect of the plan? The consequences of demolishing perfectly good buildings and uprooting going businesses are a major aspect of any redevelopment, yet it has been totally ignored by just about everyone. Why?
It’s time we stop talking just about how many rental units there should be and how much congestion the new population will bring, and start considering the effects on the people who already depend on the area for their livelihoods.
By the way, some concept plans shown on the township website under “Redevelopment Plan” (pp 22-26, to be exact) are based on a road plan of the area that went out when the Millstone Bypass was turned down by the state years ago. They show the then-proposed realignment of the intersection of the railroad bridge with Washington Road 500 feet north of where it actually is and will remain. This gives fictitious possibilities for the locations of new buildings and the possible fate of existing buildings.
Dick Snedeker
Grovers Mill
4 Questions For Transit Village
The following are comments made to West Windsor Council at its June 11 meeting.
I realize that people are fatigued and just want to get the transit village finished. But at the end is just the time when we need you to be on the top of your game. The ninth inning is more important than the second inning.
There are four questions we need you to ask yourselves:
1.) Why are we doing a transit village? Is it based on NYC employment growth?
2.) What is in it for the current residents of West Windsor, not just one of the current residents of West Windsor, but all residents of West Windsor?
3.) How much is this going to cost?
4.) What are the risks?
I’ve never heard a reason why we are doing this. Maybe the words “transit village” were the “flavor of the day” seven years ago.
What’s in it for current residents? There is very little parking, if people do want to use the shops, where do they park?
The money question — this is ridiculous. We have never received any answers. The developer needs to provide an estimate. We have none, and if the developer doesn’t provide one, they can’t be accountable for something that is wrong.
From the mayor we’ve heard he won’t agree to anything that raises taxes. How can that be guaranteed without a detailed financial analysis? The initial Hillier estimate –– yeah, the one that cost us $600,000 –– says that the area will generate a $37 million profit for the developers after paying for all expenses. That was at 1,000 condos. What is the profit at 800 condos? Let’s say $32 million.
With this in mind, what are we getting from the developer? A cash contribution towards infrastructure. If that amount isn’t enough, West Windsor taxpayers pay the difference. The contract should be structured such that the developer builds the roads and supplies the infrastructure. Instead, we have all the risk. I consider that poor contract negotiation.
I estimate the yearly tax increase caused by the transit village for the average homeowner to be $2,000 to $4,000/year. That is also a $30,000 to $60,000 reduction in home value. And, there is upside risk.
Bottom line: Voting to go ahead on a $100 million-plus project without a vetted financial analysis is misfeasance. This project is laden with risks. They include:
1.) NYC employment growth: How many jobs will NYC supply in the future?
2.) Built on a flood plain. Who pays to fix the water problems? A hint: we do.
3.) Tax impact: West Windsor average is over 1 student/housing unit. In condos: .3 to .6 students/condo. What will the student density be at this development? With the large number of three-bedroom units, it could well be on the high side of the estimates. How about the condo that contributes $3,000 to school costs and has three kids in school costing $36,000/year. Who pays that? The current residents.
4.) Traffic: Where is the study from an independent source? How does Washington Road handle the traffic?
5.) NJ Transit doesn’t want a second crossing. How is one entrance safe?
6.) For any lawsuits, the contract is structured so that the taxpayers of West Windsor need to defend the transit village. That is poor contract negotiation. This needs to be all paid by the developer.
Some people say that the empty nesters will mitigate some of the school children growth from this development, but I don’t think that rings true. On our block, two empty nesters left last year, three are leaving this year, and I know of two households leaving in two years. And one of them will be our house. Even if this passes, it is unlikely it will cause much impact between now and August, 2013. I have nothing financially to gain from my position; I just care about our town.
What I recommend is that you defer voting on this for four weeks. Do some financial analysis during that time. If you do, I’ll volunteer to provide you a flexible analysis tool in two weeks and work with our government to use it. Princeton graciously just offered to lease us something for $1. I’ll one up that and do it for free.
Where is the risk? If I’m wrong and we don’t build we still have a great town. If I’m right and we build on these terms we have a catastrophe that we cannot correct. There is no do over. The way this deal is structured now, it only benefits one of our town residents. The rest of us get more traffic, crowded schools, higher taxes, and diminished quality of life. We might as well move to Metropark. At minimum you need to defer the vote pending financial impact analysis. Will you stand up for our town and us?
Mike Baxter
Landing Lane, West Windsor
No Sense in WW
Four years ago, the two parallel streets, Hathaway and Vanwyck, were resurfaced while the two connecting streets, Birdsall Way and Kelly, were to be resurfaced the following year. The roads were built by the developer 40 years ago. Last week several township trucks appeared on Birdsall Way. I was hoping they were there to resurface the street.
I was told that they were from the sewer department to upgrade the area surrounding the sewer. They cut a 4 by 8-foot area surrounding the sewer that will be resurfaced with no intention of ever resurfacing the entire street. Common sense would have been to resurface the street at the same time as the sewer.
There are only four corner houses and all have driveways facing Birdsall way and are in dire need of resurfacing. In spite of my pleas to the Township engineer that this type of construction is called “Incomplete Staff Work” in the private sector, the response was that they ran out of money.
The motto of West Windsor has been “By the developers, of the developers, and for the developers.” They seem to have the financial resources to assist developers to exploit the Township. When I saw the apartment complex of 650 apartments going up on Clarksville Road, I questioned the mayor as to how they could have approved building all those apartments on a cliff requiring extensive infrastructure and another traffic light. It’s obvious to me that this will be an extra tax burden, let alone increased traffic, which is hardly of concern to Township officials.
The area around the railroad station is infested with apartments, which is a significant factor to attract more commuters, built mostly with modular units to last 20 to 30 years. Vision tells me, these will be the future slums of West Windsor.
Sam Greco
Hathaway Drive,
Princeton Junction
